- 24 -
petitioner failed to show that he lost anything even if we were
to credit his claim that he was misled.
Secondly, we do not credit petitioner’s claim that Wilkinson
misled petitioner. On the basis of our observations of Wilkinson
at trial, we believe he is a credible witness. Wilkinson
testified, and we found, that he did not represent to petitioner
or Margulies that petitioner’s tax liability for 1994 would be
discharged, or that petitioner could relitigate the issue of his
1994 tax liability in a proceeding before this Court.
Also, petitioner did not call Margulies as a witness to
corroborate his contentions as to Wilkinson’s alleged
misrepresentations. With the exception of the exchange of
introductions between petitioner and Wilkinson before
petitioner’s deposition in the Bankruptcy Court proceeding,
Margulies was present for every conversation between petitioner
and Wilkinson. Thus, if Wilkinson made the representations of
which petitioner now complains, then Margulies would be able to
confirm petitioner’s allegations. Given these circumstances,
petitioner’s failure to call Margulies is suspect.
The absence of Margulies from the trial is even more suspect
in light of petitioner’s representation to the Court that
Margulies and the expert witnesses petitioner called at his
bankruptcy trial could corroborate his assertion that Wilkinson
misled him as to the effects of permitting the Bankruptcy Court
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011